lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ?????
On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Rob Dale wrote:

> Khimenko Victor wrote:
> >
> > GM> First off, before you get all hot and bothered: SMP=1 SHOULD BE OFF BY
> > GM> DEFAULT!. No one SHOULD be running a SMP kernel on a non SMP box! Yes, it
> > GM> should not lockup.. But it's performance should be less. It should be no
> > GM> problem for a dist to ship two sets of kernels and modules, and a util to
> > GM> pick the right one.
> >
> > Performance issue is completely other story. Do you have util which is able to
> > find existence of second CPU when UP kernel is loaded ? Otherwise we should
> > use SMP kernel for installation CD (bootable of course :-) and this CD must
> > work for MOST users.
>
> This is a distribution issue, not a kernel issue.

Unfortunately enough, I haven't heard of even a single Linux user who does
run kernel on his machine.... Everybody seems to run some kind of a
distribution.

I do know, it's nice to live in an ivory tower, but it's too distant from a
real world... Linux kernel is not worth a cent without a distribution it's
included in.

> > GM> It would be nice if a kernel could work optimally on SMP and UP. This is
> > GM> not possible however, without such monstrosities as self modifying code.
> >
> > No, no, no. Not self modifying code! But we talk about different things.
> > My words: "it should work "out of box" for [almost] all users [not optimally,
> > of course]". Your answer: "it's [almost] not possible to create version which
> > will work OPTIMALLY "out of box" for [almost] all users". This is other story.
> > If you want performance you should recompile kernel with pentium or ppro
> > optimisation for start :-)) Since in most distributions kernel is compiled with
> > 386 optimisiation to ensure compatibility for example.
>
> Again, this is a distribution issue.

It's not.

> Why would you even want to do this?
> Unless someone is REALLY numb to his/er surroundings,
> s/he will know whether or not the computer is an x86 or Alpha.
> But, I think this is also a distribution issue.
>
> > GM> The dists can simply use a setup command to pick SMP or UP..

What this command is supposed to run under? You have to boot something
first...

> Look at what you said: Dists should select...
> That's exactly right! The distributions should do it.
> Not the kernel. This has nothing to do with the kernel.
> In fact, everything but the APM stuff has nothing to
> do with the kernel, so can we leave this behind and let
> the distribution people worry about it?

Sure, we distribution people can hack the kernel to fit, but it's pretty
wrong approach. We have helluva lot of work besides kernel hacking. And it's
not our work to make kernel drivers behave or modules not have unresolved
symbols. If a comunity does want Linux to survive it has to leave their
ivory towers and help distribution makers.

=======================================================================
Serguei Koubouchine aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately.
e-mail: ksi@gu.net SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice.
=======================================================================


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.206 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site